Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Orders Rejecting Application and Imposing Tax Liability

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside orders passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting an application and imposing tax liability on the petitioners. The court held that the orders failed to meet the necessary requirements and violated established principles.

In the case of Writ Petition No. 1672 of 2021, the petitioners, Manjula D. Rita and Bhavya D. Rita, who are the legal heirs of Shri Dinesh Shamji Rita, challenged an order dated March 9, 2020, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The order rejected the petitioners' application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners also impugned an order dated May 7, 2018, passed under Section 179(1) of the Act.

In their oral judgment, Justices K. R. Shriram and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated, "Not only the order dated March 9, 2020, but also the order passed on May 7, 2018, under Section 179 of the Act require to be quashed and set aside." The court highlighted that the order dated May 7, 2018, lacked grounds for commencing proceedings under Section 179 and failed to satisfy the necessary requirements.

The court further noted that there was no evidence indicating that any notice was issued to the deceased, and the order under Section 179 did not attribute non-recovery to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty. Additionally, the company in question was undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court emphasized that the Director can be held responsible only when non-recovery is attributable to their actions.

High court stated, "Without going into the merits of the assessment order passed or whether the time was ripe to issue notice under Section 179 of the Act, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated March 9, 2020, passed under Section 264 of the Act, so also the order dated May 7, 2018, passed under Section 179 of the Act."

This judgment serves as an important reminder of the legal principles governing the imposition of tax liabilities and the requirement of proper procedures. It highlights the significance of giving due notice and considering the circumstances surrounding non-recovery before imposing such liabilities.

Date of Decision: 19th June 2023

Manjula D. Rita vs 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 

Latest Legal News